https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120147
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
The target was configured as:
configure flags:
--prefix=/nix/store/605c4zhfxanc8hd14a4p4l0g0cskigf9-i686-w64-mingw32-gcc-16.0.0.
--with-gmp-include=/nix/store/jn9bbywyc6ncmlyd9y8qvxwn9qq7181v-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120147
Bug ID: 120147
Summary: [16 Regression] libstdc++-v3 build failure for mingw32
target: src/c++23/print.cc:102:49: error: invalid
conversion from
'std::basic_filebu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120146
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
cc-trunk//binary-trunk-20250506130010-r16-402-g81475602c3dd57-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-nographite-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 16.0.0 20250506 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118280
Neal Frager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neal.frager at amd dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120132
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120132
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> The second example is PR 83031.
Which you had filed :).
>
> The first example is very much similar to PR 107503.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120132
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Obviously, LOL, I threw myself off the trail. Thanks Steve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120111
--- Comment #6 from john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz ---
Thank you. I haven't changed my LD_FORTRAN_PATH for a long time and the
only things in it are to do with intel/oneapi. But there are a lot of
lib64 directories in my system. How do I find whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120111
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to john.harper from comment #6)
> Thank you. I haven't changed my LD_FORTRAN_PATH for a long time and the
> only things in it are to do with intel/oneapi. But there are a lot of
> lib64 directorie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120137
Li Pan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pan2.li at intel dot com
--- Comment #1 from L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #19 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 5/6/25 18:57, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
>
> --- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Some fall out after the commit. This may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Some fall out after the commit. This may be an unrelated regression on 16.
On 5/6/25 10:59 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 07:43:41PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>>
>> the new logic misses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21146
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> EDG still accepts this, but Clang doesn't:
clang started to accept it in clang 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27775
Rich Newman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.1.0
--- Comment #6 from Rich Newman --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120111
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to john.harper from comment #4)
> Sorry if I did something wrong when installing gfortran 15 from source
> tarball gcc-15.1.0.tar.xz in a Linux Ubuntu system. Maybe your gfortran 15
> is not ident
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120144
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Note loongarch definition of MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE looks like it was copied
> from mips but it looks ok there due to depending on TARGET_64BIT rather than
> TARGET
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120144
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note loongarch definition of MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE looks like it was copied from
mips but it looks ok there due to depending on TARGET_64BIT rather than
TARGET_NEWABI.
In the case of MIPS64, long double could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120144
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
So mips64-elf uses long double as 64bit and supports TImode (128bit integer)
but MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE is incorrectly defined as:
#define MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE MIPS_LONG_DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE
I think it should be:
#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
--- Comment #5 from Kirill A. Korinsky ---
Thanks,
https://gcc.gnu.org/cgit/gcc/commit/?id=dfe7b5e9e7010f10e9737d5f15f5b48ba536e8f5
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/cgit/gcc/commit/?id=29ac92436aa5c702e9e02c206e7590ebd806398e
looks quite trivial to back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Kirill A. Korinsky from comment #2)
> Andrew, thanks for reply.
>
> I'll try to backport OpenBSD patches to 12.4.0 and try to bootsrap it, but
> it needs some time.
>
> Am I right that it does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
--- Comment #2 from Kirill A. Korinsky ---
Andrew, thanks for reply.
I'll try to backport OpenBSD patches to 12.4.0 and try to bootsrap it, but it
needs some time.
Am I right that it doesn't ring any bell?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120144
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
```
int f(unsigned __int128 t)
{
return __builtin_clzg(t);
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120144
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-06
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120142
mcccs at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
Bug ID: 120145
Summary: Can't bootstrap gcc11 on OpenBSD / sparc64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120111
--- Comment #4 from john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz ---
Sorry if I did something wrong when installing gfortran 15 from source
tarball gcc-15.1.0.tar.xz in a Linux Ubuntu system. Maybe your gfortran 15
is not identical to the release I used. I cert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120144
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression] ICE when|[15/16 Regression] ICE when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120144
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107308
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-06
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120144
Simon Eriksson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon.eriksson.1187 at gmail
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120144
Bug ID: 120144
Summary: [15 Regression] ICE when bootstrapping libstdc++ on
mips64-elf
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120138
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
You could also add:
if (mrem <= 8) __builtin_unreachable();
to transpose_contiguous_16x2_block and that will fix the unitialized warning
too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120143
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
> Not sure if it's an lto bug or a RISC-V bug
Neither :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
Target|riscv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120138
--- Comment #7 from Thor Preimesberger ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > The code does look like in the case of M being between 0 and 7 will cause
> > use of the uninitilized r[1].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120135
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120136
--- Comment #4 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
> In 16 it was pointing at the same line
Oh sorry I missed that, then the simplification most likely uncovered something
latent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120143
Bug ID: 120143
Summary: [16 Regression] RISC-V: ICE with -flto on undefined
extern var in verify_ssa
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120142
Bug ID: 120142
Summary: internal compiler error: in tsubst, at cp/pt.cc:16670
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120135
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Bell ---
The emitted warning is somewhat confusing because it doesn't reference the
constructor, which is where the initialization is missing.
Also, this generates no warning:
struct S
{
int i_;
double d_;
S()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120136
--- Comment #3 from Luke Dalessandro ---
(In reply to mcccs from comment #2)
> I think you should post the second one as a separate bug and set its
> depends-on box to this bug. Probably bisecting the two of them will point to
> two different co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120136
mcccs at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120141
Bug ID: 120141
Summary: [RVV] Noop are not removed
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120088
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #41 from John David Anglin ---
*** Bug 119698 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120138
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> The code does look like in the case of M being between 0 and 7 will cause
> use of the uninitilized r[1].
Actually I did my math wrong, it is between 1 and 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120140
--- Comment #2 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
Issue found at
https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/defined-assignment-for-polymorphic-variable-and-vector-subscript/9666
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120138
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Thor Preimesberger from comment #4)
> FWIW I bisected to commit d45ddc2c04e471d0dcee016b6edacc00b8341b16 - adding
> this commit and compiling with -O3 causes two additional jumps to be
> threade
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120140
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120140
Bug ID: 120140
Summary: generic type-bound procedure, defined assignment, and
subarray reference
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119698
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #20 from John
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120138
--- Comment #4 from Thor Preimesberger ---
FWIW I bisected to commit d45ddc2c04e471d0dcee016b6edacc00b8341b16 - adding
this commit and compiling with -O3 causes two additional jumps to be threaded.
The gimple stmt
_68 = r[1]
in transpose_avx5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120138
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The path where it is used as uninitialized is:
```
mrem_3 = (int) M_2(D);
if (mrem_3 > 0)
goto ; [41.48%]
else
goto ; [58.52%]
...
[local count: 445388115]:
_62 = mrem_3 * 2;
if (_62 >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120138
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
-fvisibility-inlines-hidden -Wall -Wextra -Wno-deprecated-declarations
-Wunknown-pragmas -Wimplicit-fallthrough -Wno-strict-aliasing -O3 -DNDEBUG
-std=c++20 -fPIC -fvisibility=hidden -m64 -mavx2 -mfma -mav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120135
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||89976
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120135
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also the warning is correct. Let me digg into this slightly since I think there
is another bug report saying there is a missing warning due to SRA.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120139
Bug ID: 120139
Summary: -fc-prototypes emits incorrect type for arrays with
variable extents
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120138
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I think the reduced testcase was reduced too much.
r is size of 2 which means I can only be 0 or 1 to be valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120138
Bug ID: 120138
Summary: (14/15/16) -Wmaybe-uninitialized triggered after
specific optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119667
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120114
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119667
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70560
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120125
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Summary|[15/16 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120125
mcccs at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102891
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #2)
Disregard this, sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120137
Bug ID: 120137
Summary: [16 regression] RISC-V: ICE during RTL pass:
vect_permconst
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120133
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120133
--- Comment #3 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
bisect bad commit: r9-6542-gf869f40780836d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33285
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 120131 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120131
--- Comment #6 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Vladimir Terzi from comment #5)
> After a fruitful discussion in Stack Overflow, I understand that the model
> set of integers in Fortran is symmetric about zero according to the form
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0571638a6bad932b226ada98b167fa47a47d838
commit r16-428-gd0571638a6bad932b226ada98b167fa47a47d838
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120065
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
FWIW, the following testcase seems to be more representative of the original
problem I saw when looking at gcc.c-torture/execute/20060420-1.c:
$ cat t2.c
void foo(float *dst, float *src)
{
int j;
for (j =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120136
--- Comment #1 from Luke Dalessandro ---
Created attachment 61342
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61342&action=edit
actual cvise output (also ICEs 13,14,15)
This was the test case that cvise actually returned. It's messier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119667
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:86627faec10da53d7532805019e5296fcf15ac09
commit r16-427-g86627faec10da53d7532805019e5296fcf15ac09
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70560
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:86627faec10da53d7532805019e5296fcf15ac09
commit r16-427-g86627faec10da53d7532805019e5296fcf15ac09
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120029
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a067cbcdcc5f599a2b7d607e89674533d23c652d
commit r16-425-ga067cbcdcc5f599a2b7d607e89674533d23c652d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117905
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df1d436d17c8280bd835b045bd7babf5058a7154
commit r16-426-gdf1d436d17c8280bd835b045bd7babf5058a7154
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120112
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ccf0b93b3ccf67b98fbd5096852c369d2cac7904
commit r16-424-gccf0b93b3ccf67b98fbd5096852c369d2cac7904
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120135
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The warning is correct. SRA makes some odd decisions which causes the
diagnostic to sometimes show up and sometimes does not show up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120136
Bug ID: 120136
Summary: internal compiler error: tree check: accessed elt 1 of
'tree_vec' with -1 elts in add_to_template_args, at
cp/pt.cc:612
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119928
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Koenig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7a2b8b76ae0c8f1e49c780aa82ebb5f0325f515
commit r16-423-ge7a2b8b76ae0c8f1e49c780aa82ebb5f0325f515
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120133
--- Comment #2 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
bisecting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120131
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Terzi ---
After a fruitful discussion in Stack Overflow, I understand that the model set
of integers in Fortran is symmetric about zero according to the formula in
section 16.4 of https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/24/2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120135
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61340&action=edit
Testcase from the godbolt link
Next time please attach the testcase. Note bugzilla has a way to paste in the
a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120129
--- Comment #5 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
Created attachment 61339
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61339&action=edit
reduced.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119852
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:76c882e341cb330a4e9f677a8c3541d573820255
commit r16-422-g76c882e341cb330a4e9f677a8c3541d573820255
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119852
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb5829a01651d427a63a12c44ecc8baa47dbfc83
commit r16-420-gfb5829a01651d427a63a12c44ecc8baa47dbfc83
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120129
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120131
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120133
mcccs at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120129
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
